The death penalty gives those that are actually guilty the easy way out of punishment, and the innocent a wrongful death. Giving the guilty the death penalty keeps them from ever coming to terms with what they have done wrong. They don’t get the chance to truly feel apologetic or right the wrong they have done. The death penalty allows the guilty to escape their own thoughts and guilt. “But the others were perfectly rational.
He expresses his concerns and shares his viewpoint with the readers about our unjust judicial system for these offenders. Should criminals convicted of non-violet crimes face jail terms? Through out his commentary, Kevin mentions a few good argumentative points. For example, he strongly feels that no matter how heinous the crime may be, the senseless act such as “theft” is still a violation of the law. For example, he feels people who break the law should be punished accordingly and not necessarily be locked-up and behind bars.
They should still be punished. If they aren't, they will think that crimes are okay and continue to commit them. Why they should be tried as adults?. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it, Just because a child committed the crime doesn’t mean the victim didn’t suffer and it also doesn’t mean the family of the victim doesn’t continue to suffer. The legal system makes children understand that their actions have consequences keeping them from doing it again.
There could be a million reasons as to why a person commits a crime. At the end of the day it all comes back to that person personal choice. This doesn’t mean that they don’t know right from wrong. This simply means that they don’t believe that they will be caught and if they are caught, they don’t believe that they would do major time for their crime. I want to bring up specific deterrence.
Society puts the courts and prosecutors set up to figure out who has overstepped the public’s laws. Despite the fact that society advises casualties the discipline to the wrongdoer will improve they feel, I don't think most casualties don't feel alleviation. The discipline of the wrongdoer won't bring back the individual they have lost, through the criminal demonstration of another. I feel that law violations including the robbery of cash can be repaid to the casualty by the compensation from the criminal, to make them entire once more. As I would like to think, if people are not considered responsible for law violations against mankind, our general public will never again be viewed as socialized.
The implications of this theory are that we assume criminals are rational decision makers who will choose not to commit crime if they believe that they will be caught and severely punished for their crimes. When thinking about the “three strike and you’re out” sentencing policy there are a few reasons why not to embrace it as a positive way to stop crime. The fact that most three-time losers are aging out of [Title of Paper Goes Here( same as main title not bolded)] [The introduction of the paper goes here.] Heading for Section 1 of Your Paper (Must be bold!) [Cover the first main topic of you paper in this section.]
For the offenders, deterrence presents a threat of negative consequences to prevent offenders from engaging in criminal activity in the future; for the public, deterrence send a message to the general population to show that if one engages in criminal activity, there will be severe consequences. The assumption is that human beings are rational to weigh the benefits and loses of committing a crime. It might seem that the prospect of receiving a death sentence would deter murderers from committing such offences. However, many studies on deterrence and the death penalty do not support this idea. The deterrence theory is not always
Durkheim argued that by having public punishments and executions for criminals, society was reminded of its shared norms and values (Bohm and Vogel, 2011, pg 70). Also, it could be argued crime and deviance can act as a safety valve, with Kingsley Davis claiming that there is a conflict between a man's instinctual need for sexual satisfaction and society's need to restrict the legitimate expression of sex to within the family. Therefore, prostitution is functional because it provides sexual satisfaction without threatening the family as an institution (Matza, 2010, pg 74). However, it is argued by Downes and Rock that suggesting functions for crime and deviance is not the same as finding an explanation for them. ‘ It is one thing to assert that crime can be made to serve some social end or other once it has occurred, for example to heighten solidarity by uniting against the offender.
He is trying to end these laws. One day hopefully America will come together as one and quit judging people for what they have done wrong. These people say that “There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, loyalty and responsibility, and those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don't meet those
I do not believe that an eye for an eye compensation a just punishment because it makes the victim as cruel as the criminal. For example, if a man mugged a women on a city street and stabbed her, then an eye for an eye logic, she would not only mug him back but also stab him as well. Therefore, there will be no difference between the criminal and the victim. According to Kant’s categorical imperative act so as to treat others and yourself always as ends, never simply means to ends. We should recognize others individuals capable of leading their own life.